[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 26 (Thursday, March 10, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: March 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
MOWA BAND OF CHOCTAW INDI- ANS FEDERAL RECOGNITION ACT
Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 318, S. 282, a
bill to provide Federal recognition of the Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians
of Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COCHRAN. I do object to the unanimous-consent request, Madam
President. As I understand the request, this is asking unanimous
consent that a bill be passed granting legislative recognition to the
Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama.
Mr. FORD. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. FORD. Did the Senator object?
Mr. COCHRAN. I do not object--Madam President, my objection goes to
the passage of the bill, not to the calling up of the bill. I have
expressed my opposition to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thank you.
Mr. FORD. As I understood it, Madam President, the Senator reserved
the right to object to my unanimous consent, stated his purpose, and it
is now up to the Chair to put the unanimous-consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. COCHRAN. I object to the passage of the bill by unanimous
consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the bill.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 282), to provide Federal recognition of the Mowa
Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabma.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Opposition to S. 282, The Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians Recognition Act
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I want to express my opposition because
of the inconsistency and unfairness that this kind of action leads to
for groups petitioning for recognition by the Federal Government as a
legally established entity under current law, entitled to the same kind
of benefits, health care services, education, and housing benefits that
native American tribes are entitled to under the laws of the United
States.
This petitioning group has filed an application of longstanding with
the Department of the Interior, which has the responsibility for
administering this recognition program. There are established criteria
by statute which must be met in order for petitioners to be certified
as eligible for Federal recognition. This group has not met the test of
those established criteria.
The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians is led by Chief Phillip
Martin, who testified before our Select Committee on Indian Affairs,
very persuasively and eloquently as to why recognition should not be
granted by Congress as requested by this bill.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I oppose S. 282, which would grant
Federal recognition to the Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama.
The matter of granting legislative recognition to nonrecognized
groups of Indian people is clearly a controversial issue. In my opinion
all who seek Federal recognition should go through the acknowledgment
process administered by the Department of the Interior and meet the
established criteria. Legislative recognition creates a dual system,
one in which the Congress applies no criteria, and the other where the
Interior Department applies a set of statutory, established criteria.
Congress should not grant Federal recognition because it leads to
inconsistency and unfairness for petitioning groups.
As a member of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, I have
observed funding for Indian programs lags far behind equivalent Federal
programs. Native Americans generally suffer the worst conditions of
unemployment, the lowest life expectancy, and least adequate education
of all national groups.
Our government has a responsibility to native Americans based on
treaties, statutes, and Federal court rulings. Federal acknowledgment
establishes a perpetual government-to-government relationship between
the tribe and United States, which has major political, social, and
economic implications for the petitioning tribe and Federal, State, and
local governments.
Congress has created special programs for federally recognized
tribes, including housing, educational assistance, social services, and
medical benefits. To qualify for the protection, benefits, and services
available to federally recognized tribes, a group must satisfy the
requirements for recognition established by the Department of Interior.
These qualifications are as follows: First, the Indian group is
identifiable by historical evidence, written or oral, as being an
American Indian tribe;
Second, its members must have existed as a distinct Indian community
throughout history until the present;
Third, the Indian group must have maintained political influence over
its members as an autonomous entity throughout history until the
present;
Fourth, the membership of the group is composed principally of
persons who are not members of any other Indian tribe; and
Fifth, the tribe has not been the subject of congressional
legislation expressly terminating their relationship with the Federal
Government.
While the 3,000 members of the Mowa group deserve every benefit and
protection afforded by our constitutional system, I do not support S.
282 because it would entitle the Mowa to all federally funded services
by circumventing the established administrative recognition process--a
process developed in 1978 with the support of Indian tribal
governments, Congress, and the administration to ensure objective and
uniform evaluation.
According to a 1992 statement by the Congressional Budget Office, the
cost of S. 282 to the American taxpayers is estimated at $10 million a
year. This expenditure would have a profound effect on federally
recognized tribes which have met the established requirements I
previously listed.
I believe it is a bad precedent to depart from the existing
requirements of law in controversial recognition cases. It creates an
exception based on evidence that is in sharp dispute regarding the
legitimacy of petitions. I hope the Senate will exercise restraint in
the future when considering exceptions to the rule.
I am, however, not opposed to the Mowa tribe seeking Federal
recognition. I merely believe that the tribe should follow the same
recognition process as other groups petitioning the Federal Government.
The Federal acknowledgment process does not seek to determine if an
individual is or is not Indian, it merely establishes the authenticity
of a sovereign legal entity.
Senator McCain and I recently introduced S. 1844, the Indian Federal
Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1994, to improve and
strengthen the administrative recognition process. If the current
administrative process needs reform, then we as Members of Congress
should place a stronger emphasis on comprehensively correcting the
process, not circumventing the current system.
I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mr. Phillip Martin, chief
of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, to the chairman of the
Select Committee on Indian Affairs together with testimony submitted by
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians on this subject be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians,
Philadelphia, MS, July 12, 1991.
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman, Select Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inouye: We very much appreciate your giving us
the time needed to comment on S. 362, the MOWA Band of
Choctaw Indian Recognition Act. As you know, I had a prior
commitment on the day of the Committee's hearing on S. 362;
and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide the
Committee my position in writing.
Attached is a study on the MOWA question which was carried
out by an anthropologist on our staff. It demonstrates to me
that without a doubt the members of the MOWA community had
some Choctaw ancestors in the remote past. (Of the 30 first-
generation Indian ancestors listed in the MOWA documentation,
only 16 are identified as Choctaws, and of these, only one,
Alexander Breashears, appeared on the Armstrong Roll of 1831,
the listing of all Choctaw households east of the Mississippi
compiled prior to the Removal to the Indian Territory.) But
descendency to some fractional degree by some people does not
make them an Indian tribe. There are areas of culture and
political relationships that more closely define a tribe,
areas reflected to some extent in the current Bureau of
Indian Affairs federal acknowledgement process and in your,
Senator McCain's, and Senator Cochran's effort to
legislatively mandate such a process, S. 1315.
It has only been within the last ten to 20 years that the
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians has been aware there were
people in Washington and Mobile counties, Alabama, claiming
Choctaw descent. Some members of that community have visited
the reservation here in Mississippi to study tribal customs;
and some tribal members here have been paid by the MOWAs to
come over to teach that community Choctaw dances and the
Choctaw language (although currently we know of no one there
that does speak the language.) Our people could discern no
Choctaw customs extant among the MOWA population at the time
of our first contacts with them; and insofar as we are aware,
the only traditional Choctaw customs now practiced in the
MOWA community have resulted from instruction by members of
the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. These activities
were carried out by individual members of the Mississippi
Band of Choctaw Indians, and did not constitution any form of
recognition by the tribal government of the Mississippi Band
of Choctaw Indians.
In their attempt to obtain legislative recognition, the
members of the MOWA community make three arguments that are
either factually incorrect or historically inaccurate, and
which I would like to address. First, they repeatedly invoke
the provisions of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek of 1830.
The only parts of what is now Alabama affected by the Treaty
of Dancing Rabbit Creek were portions of Sumter, Greene,
Pickens, and Choctaw counties. Washington and Mobile
counties, the home of the MOWA community, had been previously
ceded under the Treaty of Hoe Buckintoopa (1803), and the
treaty with the British of 1765.
Secondly, the MOWA community maintains that because it
receives federal funding from the Administration for Native
Americans, the Office of Indian Education Programs of the
U.S. Department of Education, and HUD, the federal government
already recognizes the community. The receipt of these funds
because of the community's status as state-recognized has
nothing to do with the question of the community's federal
recognition, which is a totally separate issue.
Finally, the members of the MOWA community are arguing that
a failure of the Congress to act positively on this bill
would be an abandonment of the Congressional power to handle
``commerce with the Indian tribes'' as provided for in the
United States Constitution. We believe, to the contrary, that
the Constitution provides for a government to government
relationship only with those Indian tribes that are federally
recognized, and that such recognition (as with foreign
nations and the State Department) should for the most part be
a function of the executive branch, and not of the Congress.
The Congress saw fit in the 1930's to limit services (and
thus tribal membership) to Mississippi Choctaws to persons of
one-half or greater degree demonstrable Mississippi Choctaw
blood quantum. For the Congress to approve legislation that
would now offer these same services to Alabama ``Choctaws''
of conceivably minuscule blood quanta would seem to us
patently unfair. While we have no argument with groups
asserting their rights under the Federal Acknowledgement
Process of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, when specific
legislation is introduced, we as Choctaws do have the right
to be concerned about the name ``Choctaw'' being
misrepresented and the historical record being distorted.
It appears to me that if the Congress took the initiative
to legislatively recognize tribes outside of land claims
cases, it would open the door for many, many other groups in
the Southeast to submit bills, based on tenuous historical
claims--a precedent the Congress would not want to have to
concern itself with on a regular basis which could result in
making a mockery of the historic government to government
relationship that the Congress has maintained with bona fide
tribes throughout the country.
The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians respectfully urges
the members of the Select Committee on Indian Affairs to
table S. 362 and to encourage the MOWA community to pursue
the established process for recognition through the
Department of the Interior.
Sincerely,
Phillip Martin,
Chief.
Comments on the MOWA Band of Choctaw
(By Kenneth H. Carleton, M.A., Choctaw Tribal Anthropologist/
Ethnohistorian; Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians
Introduction
The ``MOWA'' are a group of people who live in northern
Mobile county and southern Washington county, Alabama, in an
area roughly bounded by the towns of Citronelle, Mt. Vernon,
McIntosh and Tibbie. They have been known as the Alabama
``Cajans'' since that name was applied to them in the 1880s.
Although they have never liked this name, it is a useful term
to distinguish them. These people are the descendants of many
of the early settlers in this area and are a unique mixture
of both genetic and cultural heritages.
Over the past century, an enormous amount of material has
been written about the ``Cajans'' by numerous people. There
have been several articles in scholarly journals and church
publications and at least three Masters theses which discuss
the social, cultural and genetic backgrounds of these people.
From the late 1920s onward, there are published accounts of
them about every ten to twenty years. Therefore, the
documentary background available on their social and cultural
practices in really rather good, which is unusual for a group
like this.
Historical Background of the Area
The initial European settlement of the Mobile Bay area took
place in 1702 when the French under Iberville founded Fort
Louis de la Louisiane north of modern-day Mobile. At this
time, or within a few years, several small Indian tribes were
living along the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers north of Mobile.
These tribes included the Mobile, the Tohome, the Appalachee
and the Teansa, among others.
The Mobile
The Mobile Indians were living on the Mobile River
approximately five miles below the confluence of the Alabama
and Tombigbee rivers at the time of initial contact with the
French and Spanish. By ca. 1730, they had moved to the mouth
of the Mobile River where they stayed until 1763 when they
disappear from the documentary record.
The Tohome
The Tohome were also present in the Mobile area at initial
contact. There were apparently two groups (village ?) of them
which were known as the Big Tohomes and the Little Tohomes or
Naniabas. They continued to live there at least until they
too disappear from the documentary record in the early 1770s.
The Appalachee
The Appalachee where initially contacted by De Soto in
central Florida and were missionized by the Spanish in the
early seventeenth century. They lived primarily around the
mission of San Luis, which was located in present-day
Tallahassee. During the winter of 1703/04, an English-led
raid from Charlestown, South Carolina (modern Charleston),
destroyed San Luis and killed or captured as slave over
1,000 of the Appalachee. The survivors of this disaster
fled to the Pensacola area. By the end of 1705 they had
come to Mobile, where the settled under the protection of
the French. In 1763 with the end of the French and Indian
War, France was forced out of North America and England
was granted all of France's territories east of the
Mississippi. At this time the Appalachee in Mobile were
jointed by other groups of Appalachee. In 1764, the newly
reunited Appalachee, the Taensa, and the Pakana bank of
Creeks all removed themselves to the Red River in
Louisiana, in order to avoid English dominion.
The Taenas
At initial contact with the French, the Taensa were living
on the Mississippi River. However, at the encouragement of
the French by ca. 1715 they had moved all of their people to
the Mobile area. They remained there until 1764, when they
went to the Red River with the Appalachee.
These groups where not the only Indian presence in the
Mobile area. Throughout the eighteenth century, particularly
during the French Period (1702-1763), there was a constant
flow of Indians, including Choctaw, Chickasaw, and various
Creek groups, who came to Mobile to trade, receive presents
and discuss important matters with the Europeans there.
However, by the last two decades of the eighteenth century,
there were no organized groups of Indians living in the area
around Mobile.
The English took control of Mobile and its environs after
1763. They controlled the area until the American Revolution.
In 1765, the British held the Congress of Mobile with the
Choctaw Nation. At this Congress the Choctaw agreed to cede
all territory south of the 31 deg. Parallel, between the
Tombigbee River and the Mississippi River and the Natchez
District to the British.
In 1780, the Spanish took advantage of the conflict between
the British and their former colonists and systematically
invaded every non-Spanish port along the Gulf of Mexico. In
March of 1780, a force of Spanish soldiers, a large number of
which were Negroes and mulattos from South America and
probably the Caribbean, took Mobile. By the middle of 1781
the entire Gulf Coast, from Florida to Louisiana, was under
Spanish dominion. In 1783, at the end of the American
Revolution, the British ceded all their territory south of
Canada to the United States with the southern boundary along
the Gulf Coast being set at the 31 deg. Parallel.
During the next decade, especially when operating under the
Articles of Confederation, the United States were not in a
position to enforce this southern boundary with the Spanish.
The Spanish encroached beyond this line in several places
including the Mobile area, where they had a fort at St.
Stephens, almost forty miles north of the 31 deg. Parallel.
Finally in 1795, the now stronger United States was able to
force the Treaty of San Lorenzo which held the Spanish to the
31 deg. Parallel. In this same year, the Mississippi
Territory was formed with the 31 deg. Parallel as its
southern border and Natchez as its capital. It is at this
time that a number of significant treaties with the
Choctaw pertinent to this area began to be signed.
treaty of hoe buckintoopa, 1803
On August 31, 1803, the Treaty of Hoe Buckintoopa was
signed. This treaty ceded all Choctaw claims to the area
bounded by the Chickasawhay River, on the west; Buckatunna
Creek, Red Creek and Santa Bogue Creek on the north; and the
Tombigbee River, on the east and the 31 deg. Parallel on the
south. This area covers the eastern extremes of present-day
Wayne and Greene counties, Mississippi, and the northern
extreme of present-day Mobile County and all except the
extreme northern portion of present-day Washington County,
Alabama.
treaty of mount dexter, 1805
On November 16, 1805, the Treaty of Mount Dexter was
signed. This treaty ceded Choctaw territory across the
southern portion of Mississippi and into Alabama, which
included the southern portion of present-day Choctaw County,
Alabama, and the remaining portion of present-day Washington
County, to the Tombigbee River.
treaty of st. stephens, 1816
On October 24, 1816, the Treaty of St. Stephens was signed.
This treaty ceded all Choctaw lands east of the Tombigbee
River, from the Chickasaw/Choctaw boundary to the northern
limit of the area ceded by the Treaty of Mt. Dexter.
In 1817 Mississippi was admitted to the Union as a state.
Alabama followed in 1819, thus ending the Mississippi
Territory. This set the stage for the coming of the ancestors
of the group known as the Alabama ``Cajans'' to the area
north of Mobile.
the alabama ``cajans''
The very name ``Cajan'', which was first applied to them in
the 1880s, demonstrates that from a very early period these
people have been recognized as a distinct group. They are
what anthropologists and sociologist call an ``isolate''.
That is, a subcultural group which due to some form of
isolation has developed its own society and culture
independent of the mainstream society which surrounds it.
Numerous examples of such isolates are known and include such
groups as the Polynesians of Hawaii or Tahiti, isolated by
thousands of miles of open ocean; or Appalachia in the
mountains of Tennessee, Kentucky and several other states,
where the eighteenth and nineteenth century settlers from
primarily the British Isles became isolated by the rugged
terrain which surrounded them and resulted in a society which
more closely resembled that of early nineteenth century
Britain than twentieth century North America with elements
that are uniquely their own thrown in; on some of the barrier
islands along the coast of Virginia, the language that is
spoken is not that of modern American English but
more closely resembles that of Elizabethan English which
the original settlers of these island spoke.
The ``Cajans'' of Alabama were not isolated from the
mainstream society by great physical barriers. There are no
enormous mountains which surround them or miles of ocean
which separate them from their neighbors. Their isolation was
a social isolation. These people are the descendants of a
mixed genetic and social heritage. Many of the ancestors of
this group were white, but many were also ``mulattos'' of
mixed black and white or Indian backgrounds and many were
part Indian and part white. They were not accepted by the
mainstream white society and they refused to participate in
the black society.
The mixed nature of their cultural and genetic heritage is
very diverse. They are the descendants of American Indians
(they themselves claim Choctaw, Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw,
Houma and even Apache), French, English, Spanish, Mexican,
German, Russian and African sources from the Southeast and
the Caribbean. This has resulted in a blending of the genetic
and cultural heritages from all of these sources. They are
not black, white or Indian but an unique mix of all three.
social isolation
Because of the mixed heritages of this group and the
relatively remote area in which they lived, the members of
this community became isolated from the mainstream society at
a very early time. They were already recognized as a separate
community, with their own cultural and social structure by
the 1880s. This implies that almost from the beginning, they
kept to themselves and only minimally interacted with the
outside world.
This isolation was probably caused by several factors.
First was their mixed genetic heritage. Although many of them
appeared to be white, as attested to by the censuses in which
they are listed as such, many more of them could not. They
did not appear to be black, but they definitely were not
white, which resulted in them being shunned by most white
society. They, on the other hand, refused to be considered
black, since they considered that insulting. So, the only
option which they had was to stay away from the white society
which did not accept them as part of it and to remain apart
from the black society in which they refused to interact.
family histories
The historical antecedents of the Alabama ``Cajans'' are
numerous and varied. Some of their ancestors were French
colonial settlers or the children of French settlers. These
include Juzans and the Chestangs families, both of who were
well established in the area north of Mobile by the 1770s.
Some of the ancestors of this group were newer immigrants.
The best known of these, and one of the most prominent early
ancestors of the Alabama ``Cajans'' is Daniel Reed. Reed is
listed as a freed Negro in Toulmin's digest of Alabama Laws,
and since Toulmin probably knew Reed, this should be
accurate. According to family legend, Reed came from San
Domingo and was a mulatto of mixed African and either French
or Spanish parentage. It is not known exactly when Daniel
Reed came to this area, but by 1818 he had established
himself well enough to have purchased a mulatto slave
named Rose--presumably from Young Gaines, Perry County,
MS--whom he married. In 1818 Reed was able to get an Act
of the Alabama Territorial Legislature to emancipate Rose.
Two years later, Reed got a second Act from the
legislature to emancipate two of his, and presumably
Rose's children. In all of these acts, Daniel Reed is
listed as a ``free man of color'' and Rose and the
children are referred to as ``mulatto''. In 1828, Daniel
Reed purchased his son George from Young Gaines. The names
of all of Daniel and Rose Reed's children are recorded at
his death in 1844. They are: Julia Ann, Eliza, George,
Matilda Ann, William, Reuben, Lucretia and Emaline. All
are attested to being free persons of color, being the
children of free persons of color, by the local county
court judge at the time of Daniel Reed's death.
Of this second generation, four of the Reeds' daughters all
married the following white men: Peter Cole, Willis Daugherty
(married Emeline), John Harris, and Nedham Bryant Married
Matilda); Lucretia never married and the sons, George,
William and Reuben, married Ellen, Lovinda, and Emeline
Weaver, in that order. The Weavers are one of the other
founding families of the Alabama ``Cajans'' and these
daughters are purported to have been half Cherokee from their
father. Based on the 1870 Census data in Green, 1941, these
marriages took place in the late 1840s and early 1850s.
It should be noted here that Rose Reed is claimed by her
descendants to have been half Choctaw. However, there is no
documentary evidence to prove this statement while there is a
great deal of evidence to prove that she was a Negro slave.
In one major court case (Barbara Young, et al, vs Board of
School Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, 1930) the
judge, while sounding sympathetic to their case, because of
the evidence presented and the laws of Alabama was forced to
rule that Rose was indeed Negro and that there was nothing
but hearsay evidence to support the claim of Choctaw
heritage.
It is unnecessary here to go into a detailed discussion of
the histories of all of the other families which were the
founders of the Alabama ``Cajans''; although inadequately
documented, they are presented in detail in Matte, et al, n.
d., However it is necessary to make several observations. The
three most common surnames among this group are Reed, Weaver
and Byrd. The Reed line has already been discussed. The
Weaver line purportedly trace its origins back to Dave
Weaver, who was a Cherokee and listed as living at Sharp Mt.,
Georgia, on the 1835 Cherokee Roll. The Byrd line traces its
beginnings to Lemuel Byrd, purported to be a mixed-blood
Cherokee, also from Georgia, who moved into the Mobile area
after service in the War of 1812.
All of these families, and many others, intermarried
extensively beginning in the 1820's and 1830. Among them were
probably many half- or part-blood Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek,
and Cherokee. However, the documentary evidence for these
blood lines is ambiguous or non-existent. The majority of
their claims are based solely on family reminiscences. The
fact of the matter is that most families in Mississippi
and Alabama which came to these areas as early as those of
the Alabama ``Cajans'' probably do have at least some
Indian blood. However, there is a great deal more to being
an Indian than simply having the genetic heritage. There
are cultural and social aspects of ``Indianness'' which
more than anything else make Indians what they are.
social and cultural aspects of alabama `'cajans''
Because so much was written about them in the 1930s we have
a good sample of the social aspects and culture of the
``Cajans'' at a period before there was extensive influence
on them from the outside. It should be pointed out that at
the time the various authors were listing the ``Cajans'' in
the '30s, these people led a life of abject poverty. There
were virtually no roads in the areas in which they lived and
travel was primarily by foot or horseback; virtually no
electricity was available and there was no running water. The
houses they lived in were shacks which are described by many
of the authors as being even more decrepit and dilapidated
than the local blacks' houses. There was little furniture or
other household goods in many of the homes. Some of them had
access to kerosene lamps but the majority of households were
still using fat-pine torches as their main source of
illumination after dark. At this time only a few houses had
radios or phonographs and the majority of people had never
even been to Mobile, just a few minutes automobile ride away.
The overwhelming majority of them were illiterate. They were
not only isolated from the society of their neighbors, they
were cut off from virtually all influence from the outside
world.
This situation began to change in the 1930s as several
church mission efforts began by establishing schools and
churches in the area. The young people began to be educated.
After World War II, the outside world began to have more
influence within the local area and with the passage of the
Civil Rights Act and the abolition of segregation the
situation has radically changed.
Therefore, at the time that some of the earliest
information about these people is available, they had changed
very little from their forebears in the nineteenth century.
This gives us an opportunity to see what the social and
cultural situation of these people was before it had been
extensively influence or disrupted by the popular American
culture of the time.
The picture which we get of this group is one of
nineteenth-century, southern, lower-economic, white culture.
It resembles the culture of the Appalachian areas on more
than a superficial level. The primary social organization is
based on extended-family kinship groups. And in a society as
closed and intermarried as this one, everyone was related to
everyone else in some way. The basic unit of socio-political
power among these people is the ``settlement'' which is a
community of people living together around institutions such
as churches and schools and a general store, if the community
was large enough. Settlements can be further subdivided into
``neighborhoods'' which represent different extended-family
lines (clans) within the settlement. The residency pattern is
patrilocal; when a couple from different settlements gets
married they live in the settlement of the husband's
family. Each neighborhood has a head who is selected
informally and the selection is primarily based on his
qualifications as a religious leader. It is also primarily
an achieved status (rather than inherited) with the person
who is best qualified to act as leader getting the
position, although the leadership also tends to run in
families. The leaders of each neighborhood informally
select one of their number to act as the head of the
settlement. This position is usually held by the man
having the most seniority. Generally speaking, any man
from any family can be the leader of a settlement.
However, in Mobile County members of the Reed family have
been excluded in the past because of their commonly known
descent from a Negro slave. The settlement and
neighborhood heads are the authorities in each community.
They arbitrate disputes, give advice, resolve problems
with the schools and churches and lead the religious life
of the neighborhoods.
Family Life
The father was the absolute ruler of his household. His
wife and children, until of legal age, were expected to obey
him without question. Most women were expected to ask their
husbands permission before doing something as simple as
visiting a neighbor. The girls were expected to learn
household duties at an early age and usually began helping
their mothers with daily tasks by age six or so. The girls
were strictly disciplined and were expected to obey all
instruction given by not only their mothers and fathers but
their elder brothers as well. On the other hand, boys were
not very strictly disciplined and were given great liberty.
Few parents would force a young boy to eat foods he disliked
or to attend school and, while they might have been told not
to, it was common for boys of eight or ten to smoke, drink
and gamble with adults. Most girls were married by the time
they were fifteen or sixteen and had had several children by
the time they were twenty. Boys usually did not marry until
they were twenty-one.
One interesting custom peculiar to this group was that of
naming patterns. Although the habit initially sounds
extremely unusual, when it is considered that there are only
a few surnames among these people the pattern makes sense.
When a child was born he/she was given a proper name. The
child was then called by their first name and by one of their
parents or grandparents names. Thus, Joseph whose father was
named Edward, would be called ``Joe Ed''. The same pattern
occurred at marriage when the wife took on her husband's
name. Martha who married Bob would be called ``Martha Bob''.
Burial Customs
Upon the event of a death, all mirrors in the room in which
the body was to be laid out were covered and all clocks were
stopped at the time of death. The head of the corpse was
bound with a cloth, tied on top of the head or beneath the
chin and pennies were placed on the eyes. The body was placed
on a ``cooling board'' and the water in which the body was
washed was often placed under the board in the belief that
it would aid in preservation. All doors in the room in
which the body was laid out were left open to allow the
spirit of the body to depart unimpeded. A ``wake'' was
held the day after the person's death. People began
gathering at the home where the body was laid out early in
the morning. The children would play in the yard and the
adults would gather inside or on the porch of the house.
Food and hot coffee were served throughout the day by the
female relatives of the deceased. Throughout the day more
people would come and about sunset hymns would be sung.
Around midnight the crowd would begin to depart and
representatives of the family would sit with the body
throughout the night. The next day the burial service
would take place at the church and the person would be
buried in the graveyard. At the end of the service, each
person present would pass by the open grave and throw a
handful of dirt on top of the coffin.
Initially, the idea of a wake for the dead did sound like
the Choctaw custom of having a wake. However, when all of the
activities involved in the preparation of the body and the
wake were examined, not a single element of this event was
found to be Choctaw. The wake of the Alabama ``Cajans'' is
probably the result of the many Irish and other Europeans
which settled in the area in the early nineteenth-century.
Many superstitions and cures were encountered among the
Alabama ``Cajans''. Virtually all of them are either common
in the Southeast today, or are of European origins.
summary and conclusions
Despite the fairly substantial body of written material
available about the Alabama ``Cajans'' and their society and
culture and despite the evidence that there are indeed
numerous Indian ancestors of this group, their culture in the
twentieth century is almost completely derived from that of
Europeans. There are only a couple of things mentioned that
sound even remotely Indian or Indian-derived and most of
these when examined closely are probably not Indian.
A couple of the superstitions and folk cures might be
derived from the general belief systems of the Southeastern
Indians. However, they are so far removed from any actual
superstitions practiced by Southeastern Indians that it is
impossible at this point to say how they evolved. There is
some evidence that some herbal medicine may have survived
into the present. However, there are only a couple of slight
references to these practices in any of the available
material and the evidence is not sufficient to form an
opinion.
In conclusion, the ``MOWA'' are a portion of the group
known for the past century as the Alabama ``Cajans''. This
group is a tri-racial isolate who are the descendants of
American Indians, including Cherokee, Choctaw, Creek and
Apache; African slaves and freemen; and Europeans, including
French, English, Spanish, Germans and Russians. Due to their
mixed genetic and cultural heritage they were isolated at an
early time by pressures from without and within from the
surrounding cultures. They have developed a unique and
extremely interesting society and culture which blends many
of the elements from all of their diverse background.
However, they are not an Indian tribe; the are not the
remnant of an Indian tribe; they are not Choctaw.
comments on some of the testimony presented by the ``mowa'' to support
their claims as choctaw
In the ``MOWA's'' testimony to the Senate Select Committee
on Indian Affairs and in their Application for Recognition
presented to the Bureau of Indian Affairs there have been
numerous historical errors and misstatements. Most of these
have been minor and have been pointed out by other sources.
However, several gross errors were presented in the testimony
presented before the Senate Select Committee on Indian
Affairs on June 26, 1991, which can not be ignored or go
uncorrected. One of the errors which needs to be corrected
involves the location of the Six-Towns District (the Okla
Hannali) of the Choctaw Nation and that of Yowani village.
Another of the errors is the presumption that the area in
which the ``MOWA'' live was covered under the Treaty of
Dancing Rabbit Creek. Lastly is the assumption that all
documents relative to the Choctaw automatically apply to the
``MOWA''.
First, numerous times in the testimony of June 26, the
statement is made that Yowani village and the Six Towns
District were in Alabama (Tab 4, part 3, page 1; Tab 5, part
1, page 1; Tab 5, part 2, pages 5-6; Tab 7, page 1; as well
as many other references to the Six Towns and Yowani which
imply but do not say they were in Alabama). This is totally
inaccurate. The Six Towns--Yellow Canes, Bouctoulouctsi,
Tala, Nachououenya, Senacha and Toussana--where located along
Souinlovey Creek and Tarlow Creek, both on the west side of
the Chunky River, in northern Jasper and southern Newton
counties, Mississippi. Yowani Village, which was not part of
the Six Towns, was located on the Chikasawhay River, in the
extreme northern portion of Wayne County, Mississippi.
Second are the repeated references to the Treaty of Dancing
Rabbit Creek and its provisions for private reservations or
land grants to Choctaw who did not wish to be removed west.
The area in which the ``MOWA'' now live and in which their
ancestors have lived for close to the last two hundred years
was not covered by Dancing Rabbit Creek. That area was ceded
by the Choctaw to the United States under the Treaty of Hoe
Buckintoopa in 1803, 27 years before Dancing Rabbit Creek.
The area covered under Dancing Rabbit Creek is over 40 miles
from the most northern portion of the area occupied by the
``MOWA'', yet they seem to be attempting to make some
argument that they are owed something under this treaty.
Lastly, throughout all of the testimony and statements made
there is a basic underlying assumption that these people are
Chocktaw and that this matter does not need to be proven. And
therefore, all documents and records which deal with the
Choctaw automatically apply to the ``MOWA''. As has been
shown in the foregoing discussion, the Alabama ``Cajans'' are
not a Chocktaw band or even a remnant thereof. Therefore,
none of the documents cited which deal with the Choctaw are
relevant.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is before the Senate and open to
amendment. If there be no amendment to be proposed, the question is on
the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read
the third time, and passed as follows:
S. 282
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
short title
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Mowa Band of
Choctaw Indians Recognition Act.''
federal recognition
Sec. 2. Federal recognition is hereby extended to the Mowa
Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama. All Federal laws of
general application to Indians and Indian tribes shall apply
with respect to the Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama.
restoration of rights
Sec. 3. (a) All rights and privileges of the Mowa Band of
Choctaw Indians which may have been abrogated or diminished
before the date of enactment of this Act by reason of any
provision of Federal law that terminated Federal recognition
of the Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama are hereby
restored and such Federal law shall no longer apply with
respect to the Band or the members of the Band.
(b) Under the treaties entered into by the ancestors of the
Mowa Band of Choctaws, all historical tribal lands were ceded
to the United States. Congress does hereby approve and ratify
such cession effective as of the date of the said cession and
said cession shall be regarded as an extinguishment of all
interest of the Mowa Band of Choctaws, if any, in said lands
as of the date of the cession. By virtue of the approval and
ratification of the cession of said lands, all claims against
the United States, any State or subdivision thereof, or any
other person or entity, by the Mowa Band of Choctaws,
including but not limited to, claims for trespass damages or
claims for use and occupancy, arising subsequent to the
cession and that are based upon any interest in or right
involving such land, shall be regarded as extinguished as of
the date of the cession.
(c) The Mowa Band of Choctaws has no historical land claim
and cannot, and shall not utilize its Federal recognition as
provided by this Act to assert any historical land claim. As
used herein, ``historical land claim'' means a claim to land
based upon a contention that the Mowa Band of Choctaws, or
its ancestors, were the native inhabitants of such land or
based upon the Mowa Band of Choctaws' status as native
Americans or based upon the Mowa Band of Choctaws' Federal
recognition as provided by this Act.
(d) Except as otherwise specifically provided in section 4
or any other provision of this Act, nothing in this Act may
be construed as altering or affecting--
(1) any rights or obligations with respect to property,
(2) any rights or obligations under any contract, or
(3) any obligation to pay a tax levied before the date of
enactment of this Act.
lands
Sec. 4. (a) All legal rights, title, and interests in lands
that are held by the Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama
on the date of enactment of this Act are hereby transferred
to the United States in trust for the use and benefit of the
Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama.
(b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Mowa
Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama shall transfer to the
Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Interior
shall accept on behalf of the United States, any interest in
lands acquired by such Band after the date of enactment of
this Act. Such lands shall be held by the United States in
trust for the Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Attorney General of the United States shall approve any deed
or other instrument used to make a conveyance under paragraph
(1).
(c) Any lands held in trust by the United States for the
benefit of the Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama by
reason of this section shall constitute the reservation of
such Band.
(d) The Congress finds that the provisions of this section
are enacted at the request of the Mowa Band of Choctaw
Indians of Alabama and are in the best interests of such
Band.
services
Sec. 5. The Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama, and
the members of such Band, shall be eligible for all services
and benefits that are provided by the Federal Government to
Indians because of their status as federally recognized
Indians and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, such
services and benefits shall be provided after the date of
enactment of this Act to the Band, and to the members of the
Band, without regard to the existence of a reservation for
the Band or the location of the residence of any member of
the Band on or near any Indian reservation.
constitution and bylaws
Sec. 6. (a) The Mowa Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama may
organize for its common welfare and adopt a constitution and
bylaws in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior
shall offer to assist the Band in drafting a constitution and
bylaws for the Band.
(b) Any constitution, bylaws, or amendments to the
constitution or bylaws that are adopted by the Mowa Band of
Choctaw Indians of Alabama shall take effect only after such
constitution, bylaws, or amendments are filed with the
Secretary of the Interior.
membership
Sec. 7. (a) Until a constitution for the Mowa Band of
Choctaw Indians of Alabama is adopted, the membership of the
Band shall consist of every individual who--
(1) is named in the tribal membership roll that is in
effect on the date of enactment of this Act, or
(2) is a descendant of any individual described in
paragraph (1).
(b) After the adoption of a constitution by the Mowa Band
of Choctaw Indians of Alabama, the membership of the Band
shall be determined in accordance with the terms of such
constitution or any bylaws adopted under such constitution.
regulations
Sec. 8. The Secretary of the Interior shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of
this Act.
Mr. FORD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the
bill was passed.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________